Rand Paul Remarks Lead Kentucky Legislature To Pass Civil Rights Legislation

[kpete]

Source: Huffington Post

Rand Paul Remarks Lead Kentucky Legislature To Pass Civil Rights Legislation

First Posted: 05-31-10 09:46 AM | Updated: 05-31-10 09:46 AM


(AP) - The Kentucky Senate, reacting to a divisive comment by Republican Rand Paul, has adopted a resolution declaring any form of discrimination to be inconsistent with American values.

Louisville Democratic Sen. Gerald Neal introduced the resolution Friday during a special session on the state budget. It was adopted without objection in the predominantly Republican chamber.

Neal, Kentucky's only black state senator, said he took personal offense at the comment made last week by Paul, a U.S. Senate candidate, who was criticizing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Paul said in an MSNBC interview that the federal government shouldn't have the power to force restaurants to serve minorities if business owners don't want to.

Neal said Paul's "extreme belief" has made Kentucky "a laughingstock."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/31/rand-paul-remarks-lead-ke_n_595215.html

[Cha]

1. This is really good news! nt

[Solly Mack]

2. K&R

[MindandSoul]

3. Something good comes out of something stupid! Wonderful!

[highplainsdem]

4. K&R

[XemaSab]

5. K&R

n/t

[Aramchek]

6. even Kentucky has its limits

[era veteran]

20. NOT HELPFUL

[ChairmanAgnostic]

47. let's ignore texas, in that case.

[Leftist Agitator]

79. This West Virginian agrees with you.

[goclark]

7. Kand R ~ How sweet it is! nt

[Ed Barrow]

8. This will mean absolutely nothing if Paul wins the race. Vote Conway!! (nt)

[Union Yes]

9. Big KNR. Thank you Sen Neal!

:patriot:

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[era veteran]

23. NOT HELPFUL

Why would you expect that??? Do you think Kentucky is that fucked up? Both of KY's then Republican Senators voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I am so fucking sick of ignorant, judgmental , supposed 'liberals'.

[Earth Bound Misfit]

25. + 100

ETA: K n R OP

[Butch350]

36. Kentuckys a fine state - with lots and lots of GREAT people!

[greiner3]

37. "Kentuckys a fine state - with lots and lots of GREAT people!"

A lot of whom have migrated to southern OH.

Just saying.

[Fire1]

69. More like Indiana. n/t

[suzie]

48. +1

[tbyg52]

62. My husband is 65 years old, from KY, and attended integrated schools all his life.

Wanna take a random swipe at TX while you are at it? I'll see your random swipe at KY and raise you, oh say, Barbara Jordan, Lyndon Johnson, the Farmers' Alliance, Ann Richards, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower (even though I'm currently mad at him for continuing to support Kinky), my little town that integrated without indecent in 1968......

[harkadog]

11. "Any form of discrimination to be inconsistent with American values"

Will people in Kentucky have their mates randomly assigned? Pretty much everyone discriminates in some way in choosing a husband/wife. Will sports teams in Kentucky accept just anyone to be on their teams who wants to be?

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fasttense]

27. OK, I know this is a freeper talking point but I have to point out its idiocy.

First it equates marriage to a market place transaction. As if love and sex were NO more than a commodity sold on the stock market. Most Americans do NOT see marriage as a monetary transaction and believe their marriages are based on more than just money. Unlike buying a car, we do not look for the cheapest marriage partner nor look to get the best value for our money from our spouses.

I feel sorry for Rand Paul's wife. I wonder if she was worth the money he spent on her?

Then the freepers bring up sports teams as if that were the equivalent of a marriage. But aside from that silly notion is the notion that all businesses are required to hire all unqualified candidates who apply for a job, as if bona fide job qualifications will magically disappear if people are treated fairly. It is the same argument made by corporations who want to be able to discriminate against women, blacks and others, so they can pay them a lower wage even if they are fully qualified and equal to the white man.

[izquierdista]

29. Republicans do

They buy trophy wives all the time.

[AlbertCat]

51. First it equates marriage to a market place transaction.

It's not a "freeper point". Marriage has always been....from before pre-history, about property. It still is. The women aren't part of the property these days, but the kids are....and it's about passing whatever on to them.

What's love got to do with it? People who are in love and want to have children and raise a family can do all that without marriage. But to make the kids "legal" and distribute property....

The religious part started out as legal too.... because religion is just ancient government.

[LanternWaste]

30. You can of course expound for us...

Discrimination: Treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

You can of course expound for us precisely how "choosing a husband/wife" necessarily falls within the above category.

Or (and I find this much more likely) you're simply attempting to conflate two wholly separate issues to better validate your own position.

Bless your little heart.

[harkadog]

34. Everyone chooses mates based on your dictionary definition.

One category is attractiveness. We all choose or dismiss potential mates based on how attractive they are to us. Intelligence is another factor. That is more or less important depending on your values and the strength of the other factors. Body styles is another category as is personality as you see it. In all these you are discriminating in favor of one person as opposed to others who could be potential mates. Of course you and the other posters all know this and are just playing word games for the sake of this board. Pathetic.

[LanternWaste]

38. as that's the fundamental tenet of the OP, yes...?

Group, class or category as defined by law-- as that's the fundamental tenet of the OP, yes?. I imagine one could broaden their definition so wide as to allow for any contingency, but then, that would be "playing word games" and "pathetic", yes? So I'm still missing how we collectively choose a mate by group, class or category... :shrug:



(Word games to one is simply valid-to-the-context and precise language to another. But then again, I can imagine why precise language may be considered pathetic to many people...)

[harkadog]

41. The OP is opposed to precise language

Instead of giving the legal categories where discrimination is prohibited such as race, age, sec, etc. and the context where they are prohibited such as employment and housing, it says "all forms of discrimination" Everyone of us makes decisions based on our life experience which discriminates in various ways everyday. Resolutions like the OP posted are meaningless and a joke.

[LanternWaste]

42. You're beginning to wiggle.

You're beginning to wiggle. If an OP is directly referencing law, then it must follow that the language of that law is being used precisely, yes? I.e, were a hate crime to be discussed and one suddenly yells out with great melodrama, "they're going to arrest me! I hate math!", then I guess we could presume the person who says that is either very, very stupid, or very, very disingenuous.

I have great sympathy for anyone who cannot (or simply will not...?) make the distinction between discrimination as referred to by law (what this thread is about), and one's own preference between orange juice and grape juice. ("Oh no! They're going to MAKE me like grape juice or send me to jail!")

Meaningless and a joke to you-- but that's not very surprising to me after this exchange. Thank you for your perceptive... I will of course allow it all the credibility it warrants...

[harkadog]

49. The OP was not referencing any law. That's the point.

[LanternWaste]

74. You really are playing games now...

C'mon-- stop dancing. That's wasn't the point of the OP, my responses or yours. You really appear to be playing games now.

The legislature (whether national or state) uses precise language when it comes to bills, resolutions, etc. I'm now beginning to think you're being willfully obtuse simply to avoid an obvious truth.

[DirkGently]

45. Ridiculous

The "word games" all are yours, pretending that malicious, group based discrimination that selects people for hatred, exclusion, and abuse, is somehow in the same category as distinguishing between individuals in the normal course of things. This is exemplary of the type of intellectual dishonesty deployed by some, like the Pauls, calling themselves "libertarian" lately. Kinda falls apart, though, when you drill down and immediately find that "whites only" lunch counters would be totally acceptable under such a deliberately facile, obtuse notion of freedom.

[harkadog]

50. If resolutions are to mean anything they must be precise.

This referred to nothing in particular. It was a waste of time and money. If you are in favor of legislators sitting around voting on meaningless resolutions wasting their time then go for it.

[rhett o rick]

35. Bless your heart. I just love it when someone just sticks their chins out and wait to be punched.

First I want to point out your use of the Faux method of insinuation via question: "Will people in Kentucky have their mates randomly assigned?" You ask as if it is an honest question. Do you honestly believe that is even a possibility? Of course not. It's absurd. No one has suggested anything of the sort and no one believes that will come from the legislation. You watch too much Faux. For example: Hannity said over and over, "Someone should investigate the connection between Obama and (you can fill in the bad person here)". Well Sean, if you think someone should, what's holding you back?

Second, the quote you provide obviously (meaning to someone with more than a tea-bagger brain) doesnt mean what you imply. The word discriminate has two meanings. One meaning is to choose between alternatives. And the other meaning is to choose between alternatives based on race, religion, life style, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DENYING CIVIL RIGHTS. You obviously got the meanings reversed and not accidentally.

[harkadog]

40. Yes it is absurd as is the resolution.

The resolution said "ALL" forms of discrimination are inconsistent with "American values". Whatever "American values" mean --- that would be a debate in itself. For the resolution to make any sense whatsoever they should have listed the legally defined categories -- age, sex, etc. and the context -- jobs, housing, etc. Of course the whole thing is a ridiculous waste anyway because all of this is in current civil rights and employment legislation. But if you want to salute legislatures wasting their time and money go for it.

[LanternWaste]

46. Yet that's already don

"have listed the legally defined categories..."

Yet that's already done-- directly implied by the legal definition of Discrimination. Unless of course one thinks a law which lists "theft" as a crime believes that law would also apply to someone stealing their heart.

Either very, very dense upstairs... or just very, very disingenuous in the conscious dismissal of necessary context.

"But if you want to salute legislatures wasting their time and money go for it..."
I imagine many people are reduced to believing it's a zero-sum scenario.

[harkadog]

52. There was no context given to the resolution.

That's why every Repug voted for it. So now at election time every Repug gets to report to their voters how they voted against discrimination. Talk about giving your enemy ammunition. But I'm sure you are the type who cares more about futile acts than winning elections.

[LanternWaste]

75. Yes there was... that you didn't see it doesn't make it so.

Yes there was... that you didn't see it doesn't make it so.

"But I'm sure you are the type who cares more about futile acts than winning elections." I don't live in an either-or, zero-sum world.

And one man's futile act is another man's statement of intent-- again, that you may not see that doesn't deny that. Sigh.

[Beartracks]

71. Soooooo....

... Wine connoisseurs will no long be able to apply their discriminating tastes, and cats will be banned from being finicky!

To "discriminate" means to make distinctions. It can ALSO mean to make decisions based on prejudice. The law PROBABLY should have worked in the word PREJUDICE, but I think the intent of the law can not be construed to apply to the making of distinctions among job applicants, mates, friends... foods... etc.

-----------------------

[rhett o rick]

73. Oh my. I guess a reasonable discussion is out.

You say, "But if you want to salute legislatures wasting their time and money go for it." Please! This hasnt been a discussion about legislatures wasting time, now has it? And did I say that I want to salute legislatures....blah blah blah.

I am only responding because I am curious of your motives.

Do you support the elimination of discrimination* as this resolution states?

*Discrimination in this usage means using race, religion and/or life style to deny civil rights.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Yes of course.

That is exactly what will happen. You will be assigned a penguin as your mate. Get used to it. The good news about penguin sex is that it is very hard to tell male from female genitalia, so it would take an expert to determine if your trans-species marriage was of the homosexual or heterosexual kind. Plus they make excellent hockey players, although they are for shit at basketball.

[liberation]

77. Did you fill out the proper paper work to bring those massive strawmen?

It is a fire hazard.

Or are you counting on the Kucinich avatar to mask up your stripes? LOL.

[DeadEyeDyck]

12. RP is a bigot and a homophobe n/t

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[craigmatic]

15. wow this is about 46 years late. but just getting KY to pass a law like this shows

real progress. I'm guessing Paul is a weaker candidate than people realize.

[era veteran]

24. No, not late, a reaffirmation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Rand Paul is NOT a Kentuckian he is a TEXAN born in Pennsylvania. Ky voted FOR the Civil Rights Act of 1964! We showed real progress then.

[proReality]

43. Paul is a weak candidate,

all he did was win the Republican primary, he hasn't won a Senate seat. Conway had far more votes than Rand did, but the media doesn't talk about that.

KY is a lot more progressive than you give it credit for.

[NewJeffCT]

63. I hope you are correct

and that the current polls are just because of Paul's media celebrity and name.

[old mark]

17. K&R

[DesertDiamond]

18. Evil is the catalyst for good!

[SpiralHawk]

19. RepubliBagger Values Vs. American Values

I believe Americans want American values, having had it up to the keester with the Republicon Family Pharisee Values bullshit.

[defendandprotect]

21. Well, a silver lining in Paul's stupidity . . .nice!!

[No Elephants]

22. K & R

[Earth Bound Misfit]

26. I love it when a plan comes together.

:kick: n Rec

[florida08]

28. good for him

Have know smart good people from Kentucky and Randal doesn't speak for them. Good to see it passed without objection.

[Uncle Joe]

31. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[femrap]

32. K and R

KY is very sensitive to its reputation. I lived there for a few years in beautiful Blue Grass Country...people would say, 'Thank God for Mississippi or we'd be in last place.'

In the Lexington area, education and arts are taken very seriously. They didn't want to be looked upon as uneducated rubes.

And the local paper carried the NY Times crossword puzzle everyday!

I'm glad to see this legislation passed. People are regretting this vote for Rand. Could be good news for the Dem candidate.

[DirkGently]

33. K & R. And how disingenuous

to attempt to equate blind, malicious *group* discrimination, which everyone understands we are talking about here, with the general term for distinguishing things. Banning black people from your business is not even remotely the same process as choosing a partner or a teammate, for crying out loud. That kind of attempted intellectual cuteness is what makes me recoil from a lot what people would like to call Libertarianism.

[TygrBright]

39. A fine gesture!

If this is the exact wording ("any form of discrimination") they are, conceptually, way out in front.

Of course, a resolution is not a law, and I suspect that a law or state constitutional amendment to the same effect would have some difficulty getting passed.

Still, props to them for the unqualified nature of the sentiment.

appreciatively,
Bright

[Soylent Brice]

44. K&R

[yellerpup]

53. Hurrah for Senator Neal.

Paul is a putz.

[Zambero]

54. Rand Paul = The GOP's unclaimed baggage

By permitting Neal's resolution to pass without objection, Republicans (for once) had enough sense to effectively leave Paul and his rhetoric at the station.

[mdmc]

55. show me the link - the op claims this is from the AP

but all I see is a huff link..

[polichick]

58. It was marked AP on my Kindle - reprinted on HuffPo.nt

[mdmc]

59. I've tried to find a new article about this

and have yet to find one.
I found a link to the WSJ, but it just led back to DU..

[polichick]

56. Kentucky doesn't want to become a "laughingstock" - Alaska must feel the same way. nt

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Proud to be the 100th rec!

[ProudDad]

60. They'd better be careful -- Rand might knock Arizona out of first place...

Oh, that's right, they just passed a law AGAINST discrimination and bigotry...

Gonna be quite a while before Arizona does that...

[get the red out]

64. This was welcome news

I got my "Conway for US Senate" bumper sticker today. I hope people in this state wake up. Unlike Militia-boy Rand, I am actually a Kentuckian.

[KamaAina]

65. Heads up, Arizona!

Opportunity's knocking...

[and-justice-for-all]

67. Pukes trying to escape their own base...hilarious..

Thanks for passing this bill, but it does not forgive their 8 years of rule and other atrocities.

[alp227]

68. I seriously cannot fathom a defense of Rand Paul's reactionary statement.

Does he not realize that the right to discriminate will screw over the businesses that choose to exercise that right too given that discrimination=a smaller customer base.

Read this blog criticizing a conservative columnist who actually defended Paul!

http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com/2010/06/1964-vs-2010.html

[Fire1]

70. Good show Gerald. I knew you wouldn't take that lying down. n/t

[defendandprotect]

72. Big difference between right wing "values" and American values . . .

Right wing values are too often anti-equality and anti-ideals of democracy !!

[Lindsey]

76. What to go Gerald! n/t

[grantcart]

78. Howard Fineman was on KO last week. It turns out that Fineman started in Kentucky

as a reporter.

It was kind of funny because neither KO nor Eugene Robinson were giving him an opportunity to say anything.

He was like a kid with his hand up "pick me, pick me".

When he finally got the other two to listen he said;

"The golden rule in Kentucky politics is never do anything to make Kentucky look stupid in front of the politics. Kentuckians have a lot of tolerance for good ole boys and everything else but they can't stand someone getting up in front of the country and make them look stupid."

Turns out Howard may know what he is talking about.

[earcandle]

80. Oh Yea! Thanks for gathering our crumbs of what is left of our civility and building on them.